I'm interested in your opinion about if the country will stay whole or if it will be divided in the future? What do you think?

Whatever we might think of the shaky course they took toward a change in government in the end the previous president was voted out by the other politicians and he fled the country. So there was at least some kind of responsible method, it wasn't just a bloody coup via the military like in Egypt.

And honestly you can't dismiss revolution, it's created pretty much every country out there.

I'm not an expert, but:
1. Crimea may successfully pass a vote for a wider autonomy, if they really want it. But I'd like a true vote, not with guns pointed your way, which is how it seems to be at this moment.
2. Eastern parts may want to change the state to a federal form, but referendum alone is not enough. It's just an opinion of people, laws and Constitution need to be changed. And unlike Crimea, others are parts of one whole unitarian state. You can't just step in there and say: "You didn't invite us, but we've come to protect you.", then import some russians to make a better visual picture of support for Russia.

Right now all predictions are useless. Russian government abides by its own logic, which I simply not able to fathom and surely cannot know. To a mere bystander all the latest events and their consequences are unpredictable.

Everything else aside, Western nations do not just have "democracy" we have "representational democracy" (and some have additional federal levels of that) which is how democracy works mostly everywhere but it still needs mention. That is still democratic, because in theory***** votes and majorities still decide what direction the majority wants the country or a single region (ie, federal state) to take. So we vote for people that do what they said they will do, and if enough of that overlaps, something gets done. Sometimes even something you actually voted for.

*In reality, corruption can make this difficult
**Also lobbyism
***And when were are honest, any election where there is a "below x% all votes for a party are ignored" rule are by definition not 100% democratic, because a minority can end up ruling (which gets worse due next point)
**** And technically, if you do a democracy, voting has to be mandatory. If it's not, what you really have is a "rule by those who care and mobilize the most people for their cause" and not a democracy. (Rule by the people and that literally means, ALL people in a country)
***** Yes, 5 addendum's.. there is also the problem that you vote for people, but when they organize in parties they may betray their views because the party demands it or specifically, because 1 party doesn't have enough votes to rule, so they do coalitions. At this point you might as well forget the pretense of democracy, what you voted for in that situation makes no difference to what a party is going to do. So if you really wanted democracy, you'd have to have a Senate without parties... which would be like the Roman Senate, and that wasn't ever particularly stable exactly because that invites fringe opinions that can dead-lock senate.


Point being, Democracy may not be what is the best for every nation on this planet. European Democracy was a thousand years in the making. Heck the tribes that got conquered by Romans 300bc and onwards were the foundation for pretty much everything you see in Western Europe. And it took thousands of years for that to even get going. It's absurd to believe you can convert a country over night to be a perfect just democracy. Because as you say, that word means something, but what it means and what people think it means is different.

Sorry for going off-topic too (Although, only slightly) to reply

Personally, the only thing "shocking" me is the reason Putin gave for the military occupation. That was like something out of a bad novel about Imperialism.

Maidan represents active people from western, northern and central parts, also some where from eastern. That's all I can say.
Former President wiped his ass with Constitution, so I doubt he has any right to think of himself as the one still holding office. As soon as he was elected, he began building power vertical. He initiated via his party the change in Constitution (which gave as of then more power to Parliament and Cabinet of Ministers) by illegal decision of Constitutional Court, which recognized that in 2004 changes to the main country law were voted with violations (voted with the help of Party of Regions by the way). Constitutional Court in that way stepped out of its law boundaries, as it exists only to evaluate laws and conclude whether they abide by Constitution, and not to make desicions or cancel any law.

i appreciate reading the thoughts of those who are there. Thank you!

Fair enough, I think I just realized I don't know much about the situation in Ukraine except from news articles and the like, so I'll bow to the knowledge of a resident of the country.

My previous point is just that once a country's state collapses, or when a head of state is overthrown, or a military coup occurs, it can have damaging effects on that country for many years after the event, because the state is shown to be weakened, to have less authority or legitimacy, so if you don't like it then just take to the street and knock off the latest government. And that process can go on for a long time. It only ended in Egypt when the military took over and massacred it's opponents.

Once a government gets overthrown by popular protests once, it seems like something is broken and now it's fair-game to protest and get rid of any government for the slightest reason, instead of settling it at elections.

True. But this country is still very young. Every country faces such ordeals at some point of its history. This is when higher classes can not and lower classes do not want to live by the old rules.

Just one question: do you believe in a fair voting in Crimea regarding their own future, be it with Russia, the Ukraine or more autonomy, with russian soldiers securing the voting?

Well, I thought in 2014 people know better than to start a revolution, with the whole Lenin thing hundred years ago.
( With Nicholas II as Yanukovych )
People of Egypt may not know this, but that's OK, this is not part of their history.
When was the revolution (more than one, by the way), when things started to get better, and happened between that.
Civil war, Gulag camps, NKVD troikas.

In this light I find destruction of statues of Lenin very ironic.

Point is: as much as agree with reasons, revolution is never a solution, no matter how bad the situation is.

No, I don't. I'd like to think it may help, but I have doubts. I mean if we're looking for neutrai solution, which would be best for people of Crimea. not Russia, not Ukraine, not EU.

Because I also don't believe it would be better without them. I also don't believe that US and EU are truly neutral in this situation.
So it's a stalemate.

I think any country that is close to Russia should deport any Russian citizens. This way Russia won't be able to use their standard excuse "We are protecting our citizens" during invasion.

Oh boy, you know so little about real situation. Czech Republic, Poland, Estonia, Lithuanian, Latvia were Russian "allies" too. Now try to find anyone in those countries who would want to be Russian ally again. Most of people feel some kind of negative feeling toward Russia (toward country and leaders, not Russians themselves). From distrust to straightforward hate.

Most of countries were forced to be their ally. Russian were terrorizing and killing everyone who was against that. Just read about:
Holodomor - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor
Prague Spring - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prague_Spring
Katyn Massacre - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_massacre

This is how Russia was getting and keeping their "allies". Russia don't want allies or partners. They want vassals.

Ok, so cynical view. Civil war in Ukraine? Pretty much impossible now. With Russia involved, although it's not "war" war, it will for sure not be civil war even if it gets to the point where tanks start shooting.

Also, the western powers will very likely do nothing significant. They will not support partition. Will not provide significant economic support. For sure will not put any troops on the ground. And also for sure will not streamline process for Ukraine to join the EU.

Unless provocations or accidents escalate, we are pretty much on the road to a new status quo. Hello Abkhazia and South Ossetia 2.0. Hello turkish Cyprus... Now I guess opinions may vary, but I'm not sure the likely new status quo one is better than the old one. Still roll up your sleeves and make it so I guess... sovereignity and independence can not truly be gifted, and it can be created in what start as pretty artificial borders.

Finally, considering the civil and national element of this situation is now completely swamped by the international and geopolitical, here are the two main changes I see, an the two trends reinforced.

1st Trend - That brute force and hard power is increasingly shown as apparently efficient versus diplomatic soft power is obvious, and yet I disagree. But well, like the world trundling along to WW1 the tragedy is not yet large enough to cause a strong reaction.

2nd Trend - That US geopolitical strategy is non-existent (feel free to say ridiculous if you'd prefer) since the collapse of the USSR is again demonstrated clearly and I think undisputed. Shortsightedness, emotional overreaction, confusing goals for strategy... you name it, you've seen it. With hardly any counter-examples.

1st Inflection should be accelerating Russian isolation, reversing their recent integration gains. However much as the noises will happen, I'm not sure if the deeds will match the rethoric. Russia may not be blessed geopolitically (rather the contrary I'd say) but you sure can't say they make many strategic mistakes. I expect the comparisons, justifications and rationalizations to come thick and fast. And likely there will be no shortage of useful idiots willing to help out for whatever reason.

2nd and most worrying to me is how this kills nuclear non-proliferation. Obama admin efforts to progress on that? Better forget it. Defense guarantees done in exchange for giving up nukes? Not worth the paper they are written on. Implications for countries near Iran? For countries near China? For countries near Russia? Obvious. Here as well I expect a lot of noise but the actions to speak louder in the next 5 to 10 year horizon.

If Polish leaders, for a close to the flesh example, are not seriously considering at least a push for nuclear power and trying to organize something along those lines with the full Visegrad group and Scandinavian countries... well wishfull thinking is pretty fashionable nowadays. Myopically, as such would anyway be a win win from energy independence side, as well reducing the subsidy to Russian geopolitical efforts through natural gas and oil purchases.

Recommended reading despite US domestic consideration:
http://www.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2014/03/03/putin-invades-crimea-obama-hardest-hit/

And on a lighter note:
http://remarok.net/card/view/9487
My colleagues actually tell me this one is an old joke. Color me surprised... not.

No country happily gives up land, but honestly if Ukraine and the EU really wanted to stick it to Russia over this the real knife in Putin's gut would be Ukraine letting Crimea go but then solidifying its borders and almost immediately joining NATO and starting the process to join the EU. Despite getting Crimea Putin would effectively completely lose because he would suddenly border the EU and NATO, which is exactly what he doesn't want.

Won't happen though. At least not for years and years.

Some of them are russians, some of the ukrainians, some tartars. I think the best for them would be if they would be left alone until they can find their own identity. But nobody will give them this. The planned vote this month is more of a farce with all the violence around and the short preparation time.

Just have a look at Scotland. They will decide their fate later this year and this was planned for years in a peaceful environment.